Despite commencing as a reconciliatory and almost nostalgic exchange ‘Yes, yes you were as kind and attentive - ’ ‘..so I was, I would always take your part when my acquaintance used to abuse you..’, its rapid descent into yet another passionate quarrel between Sir Peter and Lady Teazle comes as no great surprise to the audience. Sir Peter has already divulged the details of his marital difficulties in his earlier soliloquy where he remarks ‘When an old bachelor marries a young wife, what is he to expect? Lady Teazle made me the happiest of men – and I been the miserablest dog since we committed matrimony’. His conclusion ‘She dissipates my fortune and contradicts all my humour’ could not provide better foresight for this latest episode between the quarrelling couple. Lady Teazle leaves the disagreement not only securing the exorbitant sum of two hundred pounds she requested but also the promise of a separate income for herself and even the possibility of a divorce! Her complete victory and Sir Peter’s defeat expressed in his emotive parting admission, is indicative of the control each asserts over their relationship as well as their individual psychological strengths and weaknesses respectively.
In light of this not being the first display of such comical sparring between husband and wife, nor an exclusive instance where Lady Teazle has been victorious, it may be concluded that such behaviour challenges the social expectations of the eighteenth century audience including their conception of the dominant male and more submissive female role and marriage ideals. Yet when put into context within the comedy that is ‘The School For Scandal’ it becomes apparent that Sheridan has more subtly conformed to such ideals. Of course, Lady Teazle may prove to be superior when engaging in witty repartee and always has the last word ‘Well you are going to be in a passion, I see, and I shall only interrupt you; so bye bye!’ but the fact that she had to seek out her husband for the two hundred pounds ‘Do be good-humoured now and let me have two hundred pounds, will you?’ highlights her dependence upon him. Though seemingly only a financial dependence, for the eighteenth century audience there was an inextricable link between money and marriage which of course is not an alien concept even in today’s world. With this in mind, it is easy to draw parallels with the importance of money and marriage to other characters within the play for example Lady Sneerwell who owes her status and wealth to her late husband and Maria being discouraged from associating with Charles due to the absence of same.
Sheridan’s satirical representation of the two characters in this impassioned quarrel is reminiscent of their earlier dispute in Act II Scene 1. Again their dialogue is fast paced and incorporates stichomythic speech patterns. This technique allows Sheridan to express the comical nature of the disagreement to ensure as mentioned above, it does not wholly contradict nor challenge social norms and also perhaps encourages us to expel our pre-conceptions of them as a mismatched couple, their shared enthusiasm for such trivial disagreements becoming further evident, a fact openly admitted earlier by Sir Peter ‘there is great satisfaction in quarrelling with her’. Our ensuing optimism toward their relationship is eventually realised in Lady Teazle’s newfound happiness with her husband. Whilst the modern audience may be left unconvinced, it would have been pleasing to Sheridan’s audience for whom the concept of a mature and wealthy gentleman taking a young wife of a less prestigious background would have been commonplace.
The transition of the dialogue is of great dramatic significance in its representation of the fragility and vulnerability of relationships, not only as defined in this instance between husband and wife, but as a general theme. Of course such fickleness is central to the theme of scandal and its consequences within the play. The same scandal-mongering, which despite his protests to the contrary, seems to have had a profound effect on Sir Peter as is revealed during the argument with his wife: ‘Yes, madam, I now believe the reports relative to you and Charles madam. Yes, madam, you and Charles are, not without grounds - ’. It is most ironic to hear such an assumption from the same man who earlier asserted ‘Oh, nine out of ten of the malicious interventions are founded on some ridiculous misrepresentation.’ Sheridan is successful in demonstrating that few are exempt from the power and seduction of gossip and scandal whether intentionally indulging themselves in it for their own gain, or whether falling victim to it as a result of naivety and gullibility.